House of Swank

Them

The majority of my life, and the entirety of my voting life (the year I lived in San Antonio I maintained my vote in Oregon) I've lived in two states.  States that, from a national perspective, appear to be very "progressive" and "liberal."

The fact of the matter is that both of these states are VERY divided.  The urban, metropolitan areas are very left-leaning.  The rural, agricultural areas, not so much.  However, the metropolitan areas, by definition, have more people, so tend to win out in statewide elections.  But look at a statewide map and there's a fair share of red on a local level.

My own political persuasion tends to lean to the left, and I've always been very at home in the metropolitan areas of my states.  The year I spent in the Tri-Cities I got to see what life was like on the other side, but that was a move of necessity rather than choice, so it was a bit of a badge of honor that my politics didn't match those of all of my neighbors.

Well, I've started to see these signs popping up around town:

A bit of a history lesson for those who don't live in Washington and don't remember the story:  Dino Rossi is your stereotypical Republican.  Christine Gregoire is your stereotypical Democrat.  They were opponents in the 2004 gubernatorial election in Washington.  Originally Rossi won by something like 200 votes.  There were mandatory recounts and accusations of voter fraud and all sorts of mudslinging on both sides.  In the end Gregoire became Governor.  By eight votes.

It was not a pretty process.  It showed a lot of holes in the system, that people at least claimed to be cleaning up since then.  I'm sure that Rossi supporters still have hard feelings about it.  Just as Gore supporters still have hard feelings about 2000.  And this is our first gubernatorial election since that debacle.

And here we are four years later, and we'll have the same opponents facing each other, and I now live in a place where there is enough of a right-leaning contingency that the Republican candidate can play into that us vs. them mentality.  I am now amongst the them.

At least my legislative district still leans to the left.

When I'm Queen

Tonight I attended (and testified at) the second of two public hearings regarding the draft environmental impact statement for the Columbia River Crossing Project.

To translate for those who don't understand that last sentence:  The Columbia River Crossing is an organization working out what should be done about the I-5 bridge between Portland and Vancouver.  There's all kinds of work to get people's input on the best options, and these public hearings were one step of the process.

There are three basic questions to be answered right now:

1. The Bridge - Should nothing be done?  Should the current bridges be used and supplemented with a new bridge?  Should the current bridges be destroyed and all new bridges be put in their place?
2. Transit - If it exists should it be in the form of bus rapid transit or light rail?
3. Transit route - What route should the transit take once it gets into Vancouver.

There were many well-researched, well-thought out statements during the public hearing tonight.  I'd like to think mine was one of them (I spoke exclusively on the third question, because in my mind there is one option that is FAR superior to the other three on the table).  It was also encouraging to find some allies in the crowd - because the loudest voices in Vancouver seem to be very anti-everything.

There were also a lot of nut jobs.  About every third or fourth speech involved peak oil, how we were at maximum capacity at the moment and there would never be more cars on the roadway as a result.  There were also a lot of people who were very passionate about whether or not tolls would be charged to help fund the development.  One fellow suggested that automobile drivers shouldn't bear the sole burden of tolls, but everyone who crossed the bridge - including transit riders and "freeloading bicyclists" - needed to be charged or it was all a socialist conspiracy.

I'm all for everyone's voice being heard, but when you've got a viewpoint that is only slightly anchored in reality there needs to be a trapdoor or a cane that comes from stage left or some other way of putting these people in check.  When I'm Queen of the Universe that's going to be high on my list of priorities. My fear, since I'm not Queen, is that if there are too many comments from the whack jobs the people in charge won't hear the comments with actual substance through the white noise of the people with opinions not grounded in reality.

That's part of why I'll continue to fight the fight.  Well, that and the fact that I have a view that's distinctly different from that of my neighborhood at large, so if I want my voice to be heard I've got to do it on my own.

FYI to readers who subscribe to The Oregonian - the reporter there talked to me a bit after I made my statement, so there's a chance I'll appear in the article.  Since I don't get the paper, y'all will be responsible for witnessing a few seconds worth of my fifteen minutes of fame.

Alienating the Neighbors

There is a river (the Columbia River, as a matter of fact) that divides Oregon and Washington for the majority of our shared border.  If you live in the 'Couv and want to cross into Oregon you take one of two bridges - the I-5 bridge, which was built in 1917, or the Glenn Jackson Bridge, which was built much more recently but is on the complete opposite side of town. 

Facts:

The I-5 bridge needs to be rebuilt.  I'm sure there's some crazy person who doesn't agree with this statement, but most of the crazies will at least agree with this much.

Someone will need to pay to have the I-5 bridge be rebuilt.  There are three basic places we can go to in order to get the fundage.  Oregon, Washington and the Federal Government.  This bridge is actually an issue of concern in the Feds eyes.  It's a drawbridge that is still in use as such.  Which means that there is a stop in Interstate traffic between Mexico and Canada and it's all this bridge's fault.

The Feds have said they won't help pay for the bridge unless mass transit is part of the plan.  They can be expected to foot up to 33% of the bill.  Oregon has said it won't help pay for the bridge unless mass transit is part of the plan.

So now the debates start, because someone has to come up with a plan that might actually work. 

There are a number of alternatives at play here.  The big questions, at least in a lot of Vancouverites minds, are whether mass transit takes the form of busses or light rail (building off of Portland's existing, successful system) and, especially if light rail, which route the rail should take.

One of the proposed routes cuts along the border of our neighborhood, and has the terminus at a park and ride within our boundaries.  Me, I'm all in favor of this.  I'll be upset if it's not the alternative selected.  A lot of my neighbors don't feel the same way.

Last night was a neighborhood meeting on this very issue that I opted to attend.  The issue had obviously been debated before, and this was information gathering so that the neighborhood association could form a statement that could be taken to the city council.  There was a power point presentation with anonymous, electronic voting.  Pretty cool technology at work.

To my neighbors' credit, there was only one moment where I wanted to disallow some of them from expressing opinions on any of the issues at hand.  Once we'd weighed in on how we'd like the bridge to be rebuilt (use existing structure for part of it with a shorter lifespan, or start from scratch to last twice as long) we had to decide our preferred method of mass transit.  We had already been presented with the facts:  Feds won't pay without mass transit.  Oregon won't pay without mass transit.  There are people who actually said there should be no mass transit included on the bridge.  And, based on the demographics of our neighborhood, I don't think any of them would have the funds to build this bridge themselves, so I'm really not sure what they were thinking there.

The general consensus in the room seemed to be "transit is OK, we just don't want it in our neighborhood."

There were two moments in the meeting where I got to make it obvious (even though things were predominantly done be anonymous, electronic vote) that there are some people who really WANT light rail in our neighborhood.  The first was when a question was posed as to "What is your greatest concern if they put a park and ride at this one location in the neighborhood?"  Options were increased crime, pedestrian safety, traffic, etc.  There was also an "other(specify)" option.  I picked that one.  Once voting was concluded the moderator gave us others a chance to specify what we meant.  My answer:  "I'm in favor of it and don't feel any of the concerns can't be properly handled."

At the end of the presentation were a few blanket statements the neighborhood leadership had put together, to show us how this information would be put into the statement.  One of the statements they had was "If light rail must come to our neighborhood...."  I took issue with that, as the use of the word must to me implies "We really don't want it, but if there's no way around it" and that's not my feeling at all, so I asked for more neutral language to be used there.

After the meeting an older gentleman came up to me.  Not totally surprising, since most of the people in the room were of the older variety. 

"It seems you're in favor of the light rail"
I prepared myself for a vigorous debate with him "Yes, I am."
"Me, too!  Whenever I go into Portland I drive into Delta Park and take it from there."

An ally!  A friend!  We had a lovely discussion about how good a thing it would be, and how we seemed to be in the minority in the room.

Next month's meetings we get to see what the leadership put together as a result of this meeting.  I'll be there, but it may be a bumpy ride.

Questionable Priorities

Sweetie and I are sitting here awaiting the first pitch of the MLB season that will take place in this country.  It occurred to me, as ESPN was doing the montage of President's throwing out the first pitch, that W was going to get to throw out the first pitch.  If I were owner of the team I would have W throw out the pitch (because I think it's probably law) and then I'd have Obama throw out the second pitch.

Sweetie commented that's one more reason not to vote for McCain - he can't raise his arms above his shoulders, so would be unable to throw out a ceremonial first pitch. 

A Plea to the Power

Dear Senator Murray and Senator Cantwell:

I am writing you this e-mail to request you change your Superdelgate vote to support Barack Obama.  While I fully support your personal preference for Hillary Clinton, in your position as Superdelegate it is unconscionable that you would vote for someone other than Senator Obama.  There are several reasons for this:

1) You have gained this position due to your elected office, in which you are bound to represent the constituents that elected you.  The citizens of Washington have said loud and clear that we support Senator Obama to be the party's presidential nominee.  You must stand behind us in this support or you are not fulfilling your job requirements as a US Senator.

If you vote against Senator Obama at the Convention, I will consider this a breach of your duties and will therefore have a hard time trusting you to make decisions in the future, and it is highly unlikely I will be able to continue to support you in future elections.  I would also work to make sure others knew of this breach, and do what I could to insure I candidate I could trust held the position of US Senator.

2)  The Democratic party desires a democratically based election.  The purpose of Superdelegates is to allow involved citizens a greater role in the process at the convention, and to provide a check on the system to guarantee the party extreme do not take control of the election and insure an electable candidate be put into place.

I don't think that anyone has, or could, argue that either Obama or Clinton is too extreme in their viewpoints to be an effective President.  Therefore, the litmus test needs to be the electability of the candidate and who will better insure the Democrats win the White House in 2008.

Because of this you must select Obama to be the candidate.  I, personally, know of several lifelong Republicans who would vote for Obama if he were the candidate.  I also know of several Democrats who are currently Obama supporters who would likely not vote for Clinton if she were the candidate.  I do not know of a single Clinton supporter who would vote against Obama if he were the candidate.  I do not know of a single Republican who would vote for Clinton if their life depended on it.  Obama is, easily, the more electable candidate.

Please, continue to support Clinton personally in whatever way you choose to do so, but when it comes time to vote you MUST select Obama to be the Democratic Presidential Nominee.

Regards,

Swankette

(Just sent to both of my Senators.  We'll see if they respond.)

Here's To You Mr. Huckabee

If "sense of humor" were #1 on my list of requirements in a president, Mike Huckabee would TOTALLY get my vote.

But only if these guys ran as Vice President:

and performed their songs before every Presidential appearance.  (They also do send-offs on Mrs. Robinson, Breakfast at Tiffany's and others)

Proactively Indignant

For someone who's generally pretty ambivalent about politics, I sure am keeping close track of everything this year.  It's the debate team's fault.  The kids are currently debating whether or not the US Primary System meets democratic values, so there's been lots of focus on what's going on in the current situation.

Anyhow, some news that came out yesterday is making my blood boil, and the word needs to get out there now that this is just wrong.

Here are the basics:

Once upon a time the DNC pledged there are four states who are allowed to have their primary/caucus prior to Super Tuesday:  Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada.  Florida and Michigan said "but we want to go early, too."  The DNC said if you go early none of your delegates will be seated at the convention, and if a candidate campaigns there we will punish them.

In Michigan Obama and Edwards actually removed their name from the ballot, so your choices as a democrat were "Clinton" or "Uncommitted."

Now we're in what could turn out to be a race that is not decided before the convention, and those delegates could come in handy.  The DNC is recommending the states hold caucuses now, and delegates be seated with those results.  The states are saying "we've had our elections, take the results or leave them."  Hilary is saying "they had their say, let's use their results."

YOU CANNOT SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT DELEGATES ARE SEATED WITH THE RESULTS FROM THE EXISTING PRIMARIES.  Especially in the case of Michigan.

It was NOT a fair fight, and the rules cannot be changed in the middle of the stream to suit the ease and interest of certain individuals.

Even if you're a Clinton supporter, no good can come of this.  If she becomes the nominee as a result of these "elections" you have to know that the Republican party will make all kinds of smear out of it.  There are already some people who question Clinton's integrity - and this will NOT help things any.

Me, I'm trying to let the world know what's happening, so we can all take a stand.

I'm also going to be contacting the Democrats at the National, State, County, and District Level, to let them know just how unacceptable this is.

I encourage you to do the same.

A Second Note To Ron Paul Supporters

My word, people, I don't even support your candidate, and I could do a better job of running your campaign than you do!

So, supposedly, the reason that you want me to "Google" Ron Paul rather than "Vote" for him is because you want to "let [me] decide who to vote for with lots of honest information."  Two problems here:  even if you had told me to VOTE for Ron Paul, I still would research him, and the other candidates, before making a decision.  You feel the need to tell me this, and do not trust me to do it on my own?  Do you think I am a moron?  I don't like it when people think I am a moron.  Second, those morons that WILL just vote for someone because of the sign or the bumper sticker or what-not - do you think that if they are such blind sheep once they go out and GOOGLE Ron Paul do you think that they will then be knowledgeable enough to take the next step and actually vote for the guy, even if they do support him?  Sorry, but if that's the way you approach things you may never move off the overpasses.

Anyhow, the moral to the original story is that the supporters want me to learn about Ron Paul, and then I will be compelled to vote for him.  I can stand behind that strategy, but you've got to actually follow-through in order for it to succeed.

A few minutes ago there was a ring of the doorbell.  A Ron Paul supporter out hitting the streets.  (We will refrain from discussing how wise it is to doorbell at 4:30 pm on a Tuesday in this neighborhood, but it would be a valid discussion)  He mentioned that he was a Ron Paul supporter and handed me a pamphlet.  He asked if I'd heard of Ron Paul.  I said yes.  He asked if I'd considered voting for Ron Paul.  I said no.  He said thank you and left.

I was nice and polite to the fellow.  I did not respond in a fashion that indicated he should get the hell off of my property right now.  I opened the screen door to accept the pamphlet, and held the screen door open until he left.  The opportunity was open and available for him to say "Well, can I tell you why maybe you SHOULD vote for Ron Paul?" or even "Do you KNOW much about Ron Paul?" I kind of hoped he would, I was interested to hear what he had to say.  But he didn't.  He said thank you, and walked off to the next house.

So, Ron Paul supporters, if the goal is to get us to learn what it is Ron Paul has accomplished and what he's all about, then why are you not taking advantage of the opportunities when they are presented to you?  I know you can't spell out much on a bumper sticker or overpass, but when you've got someone there staring me in the face the opportunity is most definitely available.

A Note To Ron Paul Supporters

Perhaps you are all far more self-actualized than the rest of us poor schmucks, but you should not be requesting people to "Google Ron Paul" as we are driving under overpasses on the freeway or following your cars.  You SHOULD be requesting people to "VOTE FOR Ron Paul."  That's how this whole democracy thing works.  It's not whoever has the best google page rating at the end of the day (although how bizarre of an election would that be?) it is the person who receives the most VOTES. 

Participating, In My Own Special Way

Washington State selects delegates for the DNC via caucus rather than primary.  This year the caucuses are on Saturday, February 9.

Which also happens to be the weekend of the next debate meet, so my Sweetie and I will be serving the youth of America rather than our political party of choice.

Today while wasting time on the internet, I discovered that there is a "Caucus Surrogate Affidavit Form" that can be completed to participate in the caucuses if you are unable to.  This excited me.  Unfortunately, in order to qualify for the form you must be unable to participate because of "religious service, military service or disability."

However, in the Delegate Selection and Affirmative Action plan it states "At no stage of Washington State’s delegate selection process shall any person be required, directly or indirectly, to pay a cost or fee as a condition for participating."

My argument, which I have just made to the state party, is that by requiring that my husband shirk a work responsibility and me to not volunteer that day in order to participate in the caucus they ARE requiring us to indirectly pay a cost.   

It will be interesting to see if anything comes of this or not.